Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur; wagglebee; scripter; little jeremiah; Clint N. Suhks
And the family has denied that.

So how did the church parishoners see those pictures then?

19 posted on 08/16/2007 11:28:45 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: FormerLib
So how did the church parishoners see those pictures then?

This article doesn't say that the parishoners had seen the pictures. The author describes some of them as 'gay glorifying' without defining what that means. The family says that yes, there were pictures of the man and his partner. But completely denies that in any of the pictures were they, or any other same sex couple, kissing or hugging. So is the fact that a picture had the man and his partner in it together 'gay glorifying'? Isn't that a pretty narrow definition?

This article claims that the church withdrew the offer when the obituary mentioned a partner, which seems to indicate that they didn't know the man was homosexual to begin with. If the article is true then it seems to show the church's claim that the man's sexual orientation had nothing to do with their withdrawl to be less than accurate. The whole truth lies somewhere in the middle, but in any case I still believe that the church should never have agreed to host the funeral to begin with, and they shot themselves in the foot, from a publicity standpoint.

29 posted on 08/16/2007 11:55:49 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson